Trauma-Sensitive Peace-Building: Lessons for Theory and PracticeCraig ZelizerOver the past several decades, peace-building and trauma studies have emerged as interdisciplinary fields that seek to better understand their respective social phenomena and develop appropriate responses. Practitioners of peace-building often work in severely conflicted settings with groups that have been exposed to traumatic events, while a number of trauma professionals interact with individuals and groups from conflicted regions. Despite increased cooperation based on the work of scholars and practitioners who have begun to explore the intersection between peace-building and trauma, significant challenges remain, particularly concerning how peacebuilders can make their work more trauma sensitive. This article provides a brief overview of the fields of trauma studies and peace-building, highlights connections between the two areas, reviews recent literature, and discusses the concept of trauma-sensitive peace-building and several challenges of conducting practice in this area.

PEACE-BUILDERS HAVE AN ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY to
ensure that they conduct their work in a trauma-sensitive manner. At a minimum,
peace-building should seek to ensure that activities do not cause further
traumatization or psychological harm to people already suffering the effects of
conflict. Another issue for practitioners is the hazard of classifying people
as traumatized, without recognizing that individuals, groups, and communities respond
to severe events in different ways and within political and social contexts.1

The concept of trauma can be a useful analytical tool, but
there is a risk in applying a one-size-fits-all model across conflicts or
importing models developed in other settings and applying them to different
contexts. A significant shortcoming in the peacebuilding field is the critical
need to develop methods for dealing with the challenges of secondary trauma and
burnout that practitioners may experience. While more established helping
professions, such as psychology, social work, and others, have developed extensive
‘self-care’ processes, this is something that peace-building is only now
beginning to approach. The peace-building field has a responsibility to provide
the students of the discipline—the next generation of practitioners—with better
a understanding of trauma-related issues.2

TRAUMA STUDIES: A BRIEF HISTORY

Since the emergence of the concept more than a century ago,
the study of trauma has gone through several periods, ranging from the initial
ideas of Freud to the experiences of war-affected soldiers in the twentieth
century. For much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, individuals
experiencing trauma were thought of as ‘weak’, and their symptoms were viewed
with detachment from the larger political and social context.3 It is only with
the development of the field of trauma studies, largely starting with the experiences
of veterans of the Vietnam War in the United States, that a deeper
understanding of the social context of trauma began to develop. Instead of
seeing trauma as a symptom of a weak individual, or personal neurosis, it came
to be understood as something that could occur in individuals and groups
exposed to extremely stressful social phenomena, such as natural disasters,
wars, and physical abuse.4

Freud was one of the first individuals to identify the
concept of trauma. He originally hypothesized that traumatic experiences were
at the root of hysteria, which he had observed in a number of his female
patients. Freud initially thought that patients who exhibited hysterical
symptoms had experienced a traumatic event that they were unable to deal with
on a conscious level, so they repressed it in the unconscious. According to
Freud, a traumatic event is ‘any impression which the nervous system has difficulty
in dealing with by means of associated thinking or [that] by motor reaction becomes
a psychological trauma’.5 Soon after his initial hypothesis of the causes of neurosis
and hysteria, however, Freud changed his opinion about traumatic experiences being
at the root of hysteria and neurosis. As Rolf Kleber and Dan Brom explain, ‘Freud
gradually began to doubt his trauma theory. He began to suspect that the
patient’s story about seduction and abuse during the childhood was the product
of sexual desires and fantasies in that period’.6 Thus Freud saw trauma and
hysteria not as something caused by external acts of society, but as the result
of an individual’s subconscious and internal desires.7

During World War I, psychologists observed the phenomena of
war neurosis—or ‘shell shock’—in many soldiers. Its symptoms included anxiety,
startled reaction, numbness, and inability to function.8 The main form of
treatment was to shame soldiers into accepting responsibility for their duties
so that they could return to combat.9 Often the neurosis was perceived as a
weakness on the part of the soldiers and not as a normal response to the stresses
of war.

At the conclusion of the war, interest in the conflict’s
effects on soldiers gradually subsided. With the outbreak of World War II, and
the effects that the war had on soldiers, psychologists renewed their interest
in the study of neurosis and trauma. For the first time, psychologists
recognized that anyone could break down under conditions of extreme stress and
that it was not necessarily a sign of weakness or genetic preconditioning. 10
The main goal of the psychologists, however, was to quickly treat soldiers so
they could return to the front. The treatments, such as hypnosis or talk
therapy, offered temporary relief.11

In the 1970s, trauma began to receive widespread focus
because of the long-term psychological effects of the Vietnam War on soldiers.
Upon returning to the United States, many soldiers exhibited myriad symptoms of
traumatic stress, including flashbacks, emotional numbness, and difficulty in
reintegrating into society without a reliable means of support.12 Veterans and
select mental health professionals began subsequently organizing peer-support
discussion groups throughout the country so soldiers could share their
experiences with one another as a way of coping with the effects of the war.13
The long-term impact of the Vietnam War on soldiers led the American
Psychological Association to develop the category of post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) under which to classify the soldiers’ various symptoms. This designation
was the first framework for and recognition of the problems that could result from
exposure to traumatic incidents.14

In the mid 1980s, the International Society for Traumatic
Stress Studies was established as one of the first formal initiatives to
recognize trauma as a distinct multidisciplinary field of study. Through the
efforts of society members and others scholars, research expanded beyond
looking at individual trauma to explore how natural and other disasters affect
communities.15 The impact of armed conflict on individuals and communities
around the world has recently become an integral area of study.16

THE CAUSES AND SYMPTOMS OF TRAUMA

What exactly qualifies as a traumatic event? Ronnie
Janoff-Bulman defines a traumatic event as ‘those that are most apt to produce
a traumatic response—are out of the ordinary and are directly experienced as
threats to survival and preservation’.17 The most common distinction of types
of traumatic events is between natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tidal
waves, hurricanes, and those resulting from the actions of men and women, such
as war, terrorism, and domestic violence. Frank Ochberg, a medical doctor with
extensive experience working in trauma situations distinguishes between
‘victimization’, trauma that results from human cruelty, and ‘traumatization’,
brought on by natural disasters.18 Another common distinction is to examine the
effect of traumatic incidents at the interpersonal, community, national, or
international level.19

Trauma can cause emotional or physical harm or be singular,
episodic, or continuous in duration.20 There are numerous symptoms that
individuals can develop as a result of experiencing potentially traumatic
situations. It is essential to note that although an individual may experience
severe trauma, many do not develop such ongoing psychological problems as PTSD.
Individuals initially might experience mild denial or flashbacks, but after a
period of time recover and return to normal functioning.21 For those who
develop long-term problems, however, the effects of trauma do not recede; instead
they tend to intensify and negatively affect their ability to cope with life.

The psychological symptoms associated with exposure to
trauma include anxiety, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal,
hostility, estrangement, isolation, feelings of meaninglessness, anticipation
of betrayal, hypervigilance, and an inability to trust.22 In addition, most
trauma victims suffer from a sense of helplessness and terror because the
traumatic event often destroys their sense of security and well-being.23 At the
heart of the trauma survivor’s experience is the tendency to deny and repress the
triggering event and emotions associated with it, while at the same time, this
same event and related emotions repeatedly intrude into the person’s
consciousness without warning.24 Often these episodes and experiences of denial
and intrusion alternate, causing a feeling of loss of control over life until
the traumatized individual is able to heal from the event.25

Another common dynamic is that survivors of trauma often stigmatize
themselves. The victim may blame herself for not fighting back, which leads to
a further decrease in self-esteem, and an increased sense of guilt and
humiliation. In addition, the larger community often blames the victim for his
or her situation or does not wish to acknowledge the pain and suffering in the
world and therefore of that individual.26 Moreover, perpetrators of trauma
often try to use their power to silence or question the credibility of those
they injure.27

TRAUMA AND PEACE-BUILDING

Similar to the development of trauma studies, peace-building
has emerged in the past two decades as a way to help prevent and respond to
conflicts. One accepted definition of peace-building calls it ‘a process that
facilitates the establishment of durable peace and tries to prevent the
recurrence of violence by addressing root causes and effects of conflict
through reconciliation, institution building and political as well as economic
transformation’.28

Several scholars and practitioners have researched the
nature of peace-building activities, 29 which can be divided into two main
types: those that focus on the structural sources of a conflict (such as
governmental and economic institutions and policy) and their reformation (which
tend to be more elite and policy focused); and those concerned with improving
relations between groups (which tend to be more community based). The majority
of activities within the relational approach to peace-building concentrate on
civil society and focus on improving understanding and trust between groups in
conflict and facilitating interaction through community projects. The
underlying basis for most of these activities is that an essential component of
peacebuilding and trust-building involves the reconstruction or reconfiguration
of relationships between parties in conflict.

Practitioners working in areas of severe conflict are often
interacting in societies that have been exposed to severe trauma and have
therefore become susceptible to its long-term consequences at the individual,
community, and national levels. They operate at the nexus of trauma and
peace-building. If one of the primary goals of peacebuilding is to help repair
and rebuild fragmented social relationships, peace-building scholars and
practitioners need to be familiar with the basic concepts of trauma studies, and
vice-versa.

In recent years, a number of peace-building scholars and
practitioners have begun to discuss the relationship between trauma and
conflict. For example, Hugo van der Merwe and Tracy Vienings collaborated on
‘Coping with Trauma’, an excellent overview of trauma and conflict.30 Of
particular relevance for peace-building is their discussion of ‘secondary
victimization’. They assert, ‘The traumatic nature of violence means that any
contact with the traumatic materials—through witnessing or hearing of the
event—can also have a deleterious effect’.31 Although the authors raise a
number of important issues, the chapter does not provide sufficient guidance of
how to effectively conduct peace-building work in potentially traumatic
situations, explore the distinction between peace-building work and therapy, or
discuss in detail how to deal with secondary trauma. In ‘How will I sustain
myself?’, a chapter in the Handbook of International Peacebuilding, the authors
warn about the possible danger of secondary trauma and offer several coping
strategies, including talking in a support network about what is being heard
and experienced, leaving one’s work at work (not bringing it home); and
returning to one’s sanctuary.32

WHO IS TRAUMATIZED?

One of the challenges of working with trauma is
understanding how individuals and societies may be affected by trauma. As
mentioned above, many societies experience traumatic events, but a significant
percentage of the population does not suffer longterm consequences or develop
PTSD. According to World Bank figures, among the general population in most
countries, between 1 percent and 3 percent have psychiatric problems, such as
alcoholism, PTSD, and depression.33 Although the data regarding mental health
in conflict-affected populations is limited, studies reveal acute rates of
depression and PTSD to be higher than 10 percent in general postconflict populations
and possibly as high as 40 percent, or more, among refugees and IDPs.34

Researchers have several hypotheses for the development of
PTSD in some individuals but not in others. First, the type and severity of
trauma experienced is likely to be a strong factor, with incidents of violence
and abuse likely to cause more PTSD than other types of trauma.35 On-going
exposure to traumatic events, such as war and repeated violence, is likely to
lead to an increased incidence of PTSD. Some research points to other factors
that may encourage or prevent the development of PTSD, including family
history, genetic risk factors, an individual’s personality, cultural factors, past
history of trauma, behavioral or psychological problems, parental
relationships, and social support.36 Resilience has emerged as one of the most
important concepts concerning how individuals and communities respond to
traumatic events. Julio Peres and others define resilience as ‘the ability to
go through difficulties and regain satisfactory quality of life’ and as a key
factor ‘of the intensity and duration of trauma related symptoms’.37 A number
of factors can help build or sustain resilience, including family and communal
ties and how individuals process and make meaning from events.38

Statistics related to PTSD should, however, be taken with a
significant degree of caution. It is difficult to obtain baseline data, and
Western-imposed instruments and frameworks may not adequately capture the
diverse range of individual and community responses that can result from
exposure to trauma.39 As Debra Kalmanowitz and Bobby Lloyd, art therapists who
have worked extensively in conflict regions, note, ‘The vast majority of
individuals who live through war, political violence or acts of terrorism do
not become traumatized, nor do they experience either medical or psychiatric difficulties’.40
Traumatic incidents in and of themselves occur within political and social contexts,
and it is essential not to pathologize individuals and groups outside of this
context.41 As Derek Summerfield, a noted trauma expert explains, ‘Current
concepts of trauma are in line with the tradition in Western biomedicine and
psychology to regard the singular human being as the basic unit of study and to
prescribe technical solutions. But it is not a private experience and the
suffering it engenders is resolved in a social context’.42

It is also important to be aware that the impact of trauma
may not only affect individuals, but possibly also the broader society. At a
conference organized by the United States Institute of Peace,Vamik Volkan, a
psychiatrist with extensive experience in conflict areas, commented that
massive trauma ‘may result in various forms of PTSD in individual victims, may
cause new social and political processes on a broader social level, and may
result in altered behavior transmitted from one generation to another’.43 A failure
to deal with the effects of trauma in one generation may lead to future
generations carrying the suffering of previous ones, what Volkan terms
‘transgenerational transmission’.44 This can help lay the ground for future
conflict, psychological suffering, and impaired functioning at the group and
individual levels.45

Responding to Trauma

To date there is no agreed upon method for treating trauma
in conflicted societies. Mental health approaches include psychiatric
assistance and indigenous counselling methods among others.46 One of the issues
in this approach, particularly when imported from another society, is the
appropriateness of the method. In addition, as Judy Barsalou of the United
States Institute of Peace observed, ‘Even when medical approaches seem
appropriate, many societies emerging from conflict have limited medical communities
and no means to provide psychological counseling to thousands, let alone
millions, of citizens’.47

In ‘Coping with Trauma’, Hugo van der Merwe and Tracy
Vienings outline three main elements that need to be accomplished to help
someone deal with the effects of trauma: getting the person to talk about what
has happened to him or her, telling the story in detail; reframing the victim’s
perceptions of his or her role in the event; and developing and sustaining
coping mechanisms for the individual.48 Throughout the healing process, one of
the most critical factors is for individuals and communities who have suffered
from a traumatic incident to have a safe space. The challenge in many
conflicted regions, however, is the lack of safe spaces, thus increasing the
likelihood of on-going trauma that can be difficult to cope with.49

Although many scholars and practitioners believe it is
important for individuals and societies to tell their stories as part of the
healing process, there are also potential dangers in pushing too hard using
this approach. For example, if a group or individual is not ready to talk about
trauma, re-traumatization may occur if forced to do so. In addition, some
societies may prefer other options for dealing with trauma. Journalist Helen
Cobban researched postconflict healing in three countries in Africa and found
in the case of Mozambique that there was no widespread sharing of stories of
suffering at the national level in contrast to some other countries. Instead in
Mozambique, she found extensive use of healing ceremonies, at individual and
smallgroup levels.50 In addition to psychological assistance and cultural
rituals, many other methods exist for helping individuals heal from trauma,
among them creative arts-based processes, such as theater, music, and dance.51

TOWARD TRAUMA-SENSITIVE PEACE-BUILDING

Trauma-sensitive peace-building rests upon the concept of
conflict sensitivity as developed by International Alert.52 Conflict-sensitive
practice assumes that an organization will be conscious of the conflict context
in which they operate, will seek to do no harm, and integrate this approach
throughout administrative and programmatic operations. 53 A trauma-sensitive
approach to peace-building assumes that an organization or individual involved
in peace-building will understand the potential negative or positive
interactions of the intervention on the psychological well-being of the
participants and larger community; be clear about the ethical guidelines of
working in potentially trauma-affected areas and, if appropriate, in
partnership with other trained professionals; and ensure that project staff is
equipped to deal with potential psychological difficulties or has the necessary
support.

Understanding the Potential Impact of Projects

Although it is not possible for peace-builders to be experts
in all areas, it is essential that they at least have a basic familiarity with
trauma. In recent years, conducting peace and conflict impact analysis has
become a standard component of much of peace-building. In addition to the
standard questions involved in impact assessments, a few additional questions
could be added to address trauma. These might include the following: How much
exposure to trauma has the community had? What are its current coping
mechanisms? What is the resilience level of the community? What potential negative
or positive effect will a project have on the trauma levels of the community? Being
trauma sensitive does not mean that difficult emotional or psychological issues
should necessarily be avoided.54 It does require minimal research, at the
least, to ensure that projects be conducted in a sensitive manner and avoid
inflicting additional harm on participants. There is no single model for how
this should be done; it depends in part on an organization’s culture, location,
type of activity, staffing, and so on. There is a need to provide increased
support and training in this area not only for expatriate staff, but also for
local staff, who are from and working directly in conflict regions. Oftentimes,
these staff do not have the luxury of leaving the conflict area.

Ethical Guidelines

What is the appropriate role for conflict resolution
professionals working with issues of trauma? What happens if, in a desire to
encourage people to talk and work through their past, the professionals do more
damage the good? How can one encourage groups to share their stories in a
meaningful and productive way? These are several of the key questions that
emerged in this particular session and in much of the conflict resolution work
that I do. I have often found in working with groups who have experienced severe
conflict that I constantly dance around these issues. At times, I have pushed
too hard to encourage people to talk, largely based on my own, more
prescriptive agenda, and have had it backfire. At other times, these sessions
have been some of the most powerful experiences I have been fortunate to
witness. Obviously, any decision to approach sharing of potentially traumatic
issues needs to be decided and conducted in an elicitive manner based on the
needs and capacity of local partners and participants.55 Local and
international peace-building partners can play a critical role in creating a
safe space for this work.

In some of my work with youth from conflicted regions, the projects
have hired social workers with extensive experience dealing with youth to be a
core part of the staff. The social workers were not there to conduct formal
therapy with the participants or staff, but to talk with participants who had
difficulties with the process or with being away from home. Of equal
importance, they also provided basic training for program staff regarding
trauma and possible symptoms; throughout the program, they were critical
resource people. This idea of working in partnership with professionals from other
sectors, for example mental health, is critical. As Judy Barsalou states
‘Individuals and groups suffering from the trauma of armed conflict have
psychological needs that need to be addressed at the individual, community, and
national levels. Professionals working in different fields—psychiatry,
psychology, community development, education, and conflict resolution—all have
different skills and strengths to offer to trauma victims’.56 Often, however,
funding for this type of cooperative work may not be available. There are also
potential downsides to working in partnership; for instance, there may be a
lack of agreement over roles, and participants may feel uncomfortable if they
perceive that a mental health professional is there to treat them.

To date there has been little academic writing in the
peace-building field on the difference between peace-building and therapy. While
peace-building can be therapeutic in nature and bring out difficult emotions
and experiences, many peace-builders do not have training in mental health.
They can potentially do significant harm if traumatized groups or individuals
open up and peace-builders push too hard, do not provide a safe space, or
prematurely push them toward reconciliation. Although mental health
professionals cannot be part of all peace-building programs, it is important
that peacebuilders working in situations involving trauma have a basic
understanding of the concept, are aware that sometimes they may need to consult
with professionals from other fields, and should always work to ensure the
safety of local populations. Peace-builders also need to develop stronger
ethics and guidelines of practice.

Another potential ethical challenge in postconflict settings
involves the push to do cross-community peace-building across the conflict
divide. Although this work is essential, at times if it is too rushed it can be
potentially detrimental. A number of conflict resolution scholars have explored
the importance of integrating healing and mourning as a component or a
necessary first step in conflict resolution work.57 To a large degree, however,
trauma and conflict resolution work remain separate areas of practice. If
individuals, groups, or societies are suffering from the negative effects of traumatic
incidents, it might be unethical to move ahead with peace-building work without
creating a safe space for healing, mourning, and rebuilding. Groups that have suffered
in conflict often need a safe space to explore their anger and hurt. For example,
if a child has been repeatedly abused by a parent, bringing a parent and child
together prematurely can potentially cause more harm than good. As Arnold
Mindell, a psychologist with extensive experience in conflict regions,
explains, ‘There is, of course, a moment to forgive, but dealing hastily with
abuse issues invites those who experienced them not only to forgive but to
forget. Forgetting creates insensitivity to one’s own pain and blocks a person
from taking the necessary steps to avoid further danger’.58

One method for dealing with some of the challenges of
cross-community work is conducting in-depth, single-community work prior to
bringing groups together. As Cynthia Cohen, professor of coexistence at
Brandeis University, states, ‘Very often preparation for intercommunal
exchanges—especially when it involves some degree of healing from trauma—is
best accomplished in uninational or unicommunal settings’. 59 This
within-community work may not always be appropriate or feasible, but it is
important to at least consider it as a possibility. There is also the challenge
that without external assistance, groups may not always be willing to engage
with one another. Few clear guidelines exist regarding how to effectively
integrate psychosocial and trauma-related issues and conflict resolution work.
One of the most promising initiatives in this area is the work of the Seminars
on Trauma Awareness and Recovery Initiative at Eastern Mennonite University,
which is conducting research and capacity building for a diverse set of
practitioners.60 There is an on-going need for increased work and policy
guidance in providing guidelines for practice in this arena.61

The Power of Action

One of the potential dangers in working in regions of
conflict involving trauma is classifying people as victims. Although groups
that suffer from traumatic incidents might suffer long-term consequences, it is
important to view them as powerful and capable actors in their own work and
recovery.62 Although peace-building by nature tends to be participatory, such
is not always the case. Thus, attempts at measuring levels of trauma and
working with groups who might be suffering need to be sensitive to the power of
language and the need to be participatory.

Power is a central issue in conflict and trauma situations,
because the more powerful parties will try to diminish the experience and
humanity of the opposing side. As David Becker explains, ‘Victimizers in all
parts of the world have used the supposed “disorder” of the victims to justify
their acts of cruelty and destruction’.63 Thus, conflict resolution
professionals need to be acutely aware of power imbalances in conflict situations
and seek to ensure that they are not contributing to the disempowerment of
groups.

Supporting Project Staff

Considering the high-stress situations many individuals
place themselves in, particularly those working in international conflict
situations, the field has done a poor job of addressing the importance of
self-care.Most helping professions, from social working to psychology,
have well-established systems of self-care that often include peer-support
groups, mentors, and training provided in instances of burnout and secondary
trauma. As a field, peace-building is only now beginning to incorporate these
concerns into practice.

CONCLUSION

In violent conflicts over resources, identity, and power,
parties often resort to severe methods to achieve their goals. Groups can be subjected
to traumatic incidents that can have long-term negative psychological effects.
Peace-builders need to devote more attention to developing trauma-sensitive
approaches to their work. It is possible that some may be doing harm by not
fully integrating a trauma-sensitive approach into our work.70 Many individuals
in the field are confronted by the challenges of secondary trauma, which can
have long-term detrimental impacts on health and emotional wellbeing. Although
most practitioners do receive informal support from their colleagues, there
exists a responsibility to systemize learning and practice in this area. This
is particularly relevant in training future generations of practitioners, to
help ensure that they are aware of this challenge and able to respond to it.
There is also a responsibility to ensure that local practitioners are provided
the support and training they need, particularly because they often do not have
the luxury of leaving conflicted areas.

Conflict resolution practitioners can also benefit from
expanding their cooperation with colleagues from other sectors who are working
on trauma-related issues. Working in partnership with psychologists and other
mental health professionals directly in conflict regions can facilitate
valuable learning and linkages. Peace-builders need to develop better tools and
practices to recognize trauma among populations and also to develop clearer
ethical guidelines for the field.

2. H. van der Merwe and T.
Vienings, ‘Coping with trauma’ in L. Reychler and T. Paffehnolz (eds.), Peacebuilding: A Field Guide (Boulder,
Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001), 343–51. For one of the first texts on the
intersection of trauma and peace-building, see B. Hart (ed.), Peacebuilding in Traumatized
Societies (Lanham, Maryland, University Press of America, 2008).

47. J. Barsalou, ‘Special report
135: Trauma and transitional justice in divided societies’, United States Institute
of Peace, 2005, www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr135.html. For example, one
noted activist makes the point that there is only one practicing psychologist
in all of Liberia. Kimmie Weeks, ‘Beating swords into plows: Africa’s youth
movement for peace’, a talk delivered at Georgetown University, 15 February
2007.Weeks is the founder of Youth Action International.

54. John Ehrenrich, in A Guide for Humanitarian, Health
Care, and Human Rights Workers (2002), stresses the importance of
providing a safe space when working with individuals from trauma areas and also
ensuring that they are comfortable with the program/interview. See http://psp.drk.dk/graphics/2003refer
encecenter/Doc-man/Documents/7Staff-support/Caring.others.guide.pdf.

61. In a brief review of codes of
conduct in conflict resolution work, little or no reference is made to trauma
issues. For example, in International Alert’s Code of Conduct (1998), there is
no reference at all. In Confronting
War: Critical Lessons for Peace Practitioners (2003), there is only
a mention of the danger of burnout among staff.

70. M. Anderson, Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support
Peace—Or War (Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1999).

Craig Zelizer is associate director and visiting
assistant professor at the Conflict Resolution Program, Department of Government, Georgetown University,Washington, D.C. This article is based in part on a presentation at the conference ‘Peacebuilding and Trauma Recovery: Integrated
Strategies in Post-War Reconstruction’, University of Denver, February 2007.